SANTI SAROOP Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SELECTION /appointment of respondents No. 4 and 5 to the post of Sub -Divisional Engineers (Bridges & Roads) in the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) is under challenge in the present writ petition. Respondents -PUDA is admittedly a statutory corporation and amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) FACTUAL background leading to the filing of this petition is noticed here -in -below. The petitioners hold three years Diploma in Civil Engineering Initially, they were appointed as Junior Engineers with the respondent -authority on their selection, in accordance with rules on 14th September, 1979, 26th June, 1979 and 14th January, 1980, respectively. Their inter -se seniority is to be determined on the basis of their merit in the process of selection. The respondents -authority re -designated the Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers, after 16 years of service as such. The petitioners were, therefore, designated as Assistant Engineers. Respondents No. 4 and 5 were also appointed as Junior Engineers in the respondent -authority and re -designated as Assistant Engineers. A final seniority list of Junior Engineers (Civil) was notified vide Circular dated 30th June, 1996 (Annexure P -1) wherein the petitioners figure at Sr. Nos. 24, 25 and 29, respectively whereas respondent No. 4 figures at Sr. No. 76. However, the name of respondent No. 5 is not reflected in the said seniority list. Next promotion in the hierarchy of service is to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) which is regulated by the statutory regulations framed under Section 182 of the Punjab Regional, Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "1995 Act"). These Regulations were framed in the year 1999. Regulation 8 deals with the appointment to posts in service. The post of Sub -Divisional Engineer is a Class II post as specified under Schedule III appended to the aforesaid regulation. Regulation 8 and Schedule III read as under : - - 8. Qualification and experience : (1) All appointments to the post in service shall be made in the manner specified in Schedule III: Provided that if no suitable candidate is available for appointment by direct recruitment or by promotion, as the case may be, such a post shall be filled by transfer of person holding identical post or similar post in any department of the Government of Punjab, any other State Government or Government of India or a local authority, a statutory body or a Corporate Body or a Government or Semi -Government Undertaking or Organization. (2) No person shall be appointed to a post in a Service unless he possesses the educational qualifications and experience as specified that post in Schedule III. (3) All appointments by promotion to Class III posts in a service shall be made from amongst eligible persons on seniority -cum -merit basis and no person shall be entitled to claim promotion on the basis of seniority alone. (4) All appointment by promotion to Class 1 and Class II post in a service shall be made by selection on merit -cum -seniority basis and no person shall be entitled to claim promotion on the basis of seniority alone. (5) Whenever any vacancy occurs in a Service the same be filled up as per provisions of these Regulations." SCHEDULE III Class II (Technical) <FRM>JUDGEMENT_967_ILR(P&H)2_2010.htm</FRM> Note: In case the eligible candidates are not available for promotion in category (ii) then these vacancies will be filled up from amongst the candidates in category (i).

(3.) PROVISO to Regulation 8(1) prescribes three modes of appointment -(1) by direct recruitment (2) by promotion and (3) if no suitable candidate is available for appointment by direct recruitment or by promotion, such a post shall be filled by transfer of person holding identical post or similar post in any department of the Government of Punjab, any other State Government or Government of India or a local authority, a statutory body or a corporate body or a Government or Semi -Government Undertaking or Organization. A appointments by promotion to Class I and Class II posts in Service are to be made by selection on merit -cum -seniority basis. Schedule III provides for making appointment to the post of Sub -Divisional Engineer (Civil), 55% by promotion and 45% by direct recruitment. In so far as the promotion is concerned, the feeding channel is Junior Engineer re -designated as Assistant Engineer (Civil) with 34% posts from amongst Junior Engineers (Civil) with Diploma in Civil Engineering with 10 years experience and having passed the departmental examination as specified in Regulation 17 and 14% posts from amongst Junior Engineers (Civil) having degree in Civil Engineering with two years experience as Junior Engineer (Civil) or A.M.I.E. in Civil Engineering with five years experience as Junior Engineer (Civil). The qualification for direct recruitment is Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent qualification from a recognized University and to pass departmental examination in accordance with Regulation 17. The petitioners and respondent No. 4 belong to the feeding channel representing 34% quota prescribed for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. It is alleged that with a view to grant undue promotional benefit to respondent No. 4, the then Minister for Housing Construction Urban Development prepared a note dated 19th June, 2001 for creation of one new post of SDO (Roads and Bridges) to be filled up from the Junior Engineers of PUDA having experience of construction of roads and bridges. In the said note, particular reference is made to respondent No. 4 and regarding his experience in construction of bridges. On the basis of the initiative of the Minister, the matter was considered by the Punjab Urban Development Authority and, - -vide Agenda Item No. 14.10 two posts from direct recruitment quota were converted to be filled up from amongst the Junior Engineers (Civil) working in PUDA having at least five years experience regarding construction of bridges and roads out of the total requisite experience prescribed under the Regulation. It is alleged by the petitioners that this entire exercise was to provide promotion to respondent No. 4 who otherwise would not have earned promotion being much below in seniority than the petitioners. The petitioners represented against the aforesaid decision of the respondent -authority. - -vide representation dated 9th November, 2001 (Annexure P -5).